This topic contains 7 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Jimmy-T 5 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #36672
    Avatar
    bangles
    Flatchatter

    Our complex has video cameras in foyer entrances and common property garage areas for security , so basically  on entry locations , all with lots of signs advising the video is in place. Residents are generally very happy with this security measure as it has assisted Police on more than one occasion when we experienced  break ins.  There has never been any security issues on the Common Property hallways on any floors.  Images are not  available for general viewing and images have only ever been supplied to Police when an event has occurred.  The video security system was discussed and voted on by the Owners Corporation prior to installation several years ago.  It has recently been brought to the attention of the Strata Committee that one owner has installed a camera on the door of their 4th floor unit that records other residents on that floor entering/leaving their units/elevator. They are not happy about being recorded and want the device removed as they believe it is an invasion of privacy. The unit owner refuses to remove the device and say its a security/protection measure and they are entitled to take this measure. Are they right?  There are no signs advising video recording is occurring. Any advice would be appreciated .

    • This topic was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by Jimmy-T.
    #36685
    Jimmy-T
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    Presumably the video camera is attached to common property, so that’s one clear breach.

    Also you are required to inform tradespeople and employees that they are being videoed.  If there are no signs to that effect, then the owners corp – by allowing the camera on your property – is breaking the law.

    So, if it is on CP, tell the resident to move it or you will.  And you can inform them that their desire for  greater security doesn’t override strata law.

    But you could ask them if there is a specific reason for them requiring extra security, so that the owners corp can address  the issue properly.

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by Jimmy-T.
    #36686
    Avatar
    g
    Flatchatter

    The relevant legislation is the “Workplace Surveillance Act 2005”.

    Section 9 – This Part applies to the surveillance of an employee carried out or caused to be carried out by the employee’s employer while the employee is at work for the employer

    I don’t believe that either knowing about a camera, or the lack of action to have a camera removed would qualify as having “caused” the surveillance to be carried out.

    Section 10 (6) – Notice to an employee is not required under this section in the case of camera surveillance at a workplace of the employer that is not a usual workplace of the employee.

    So even if you were worried that the OC had “caused” the surveillance, it does not include any trades that you have have on site (unless they are permanently there).

    I drive on-site with a dash camera and I don’t think my employer would be in breach as it’s my personal dash cam. It would be different if they supplied the camera, though.

    That’s my layperson’s opinion after reading the act.

    From what I have seen where a supposedly qualified lawyer has commented on this sort of thing is that there is pretty much no right to privacy when in a public place, and even in private places there are only very specific and limited privacy rights.

    Of course, if it’s attached to common property then there’s a whole avenue to get it removed (although for someone who is that way inclined, and who has already purchased the surveillance gear, it may end up being “moved” rather than “removed”).

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by Jimmy-T.
    #36699
    Jimmy-T
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    g said:

    I don’t believe that either knowing about a camera, or the lack of action to have a camera removed would qualify as having “caused” the surveillance to be carried out.

    Section 10 (6) – Notice to an employee is not required under this section in the case of camera surveillance at a workplace of the employer that is not a usual workplace of the employee.

    OK, but why does my building have stickers on the entrance doors warning people that they are being videoed? Oh, is it because we have employees? And the OP doesn’t? You know this?

    This is about a camera on common property surveilling people who don’t want to be filmed and our attempts to find a solution.

    Thanks for correcting me on the name of the relevant legislation.  As a layperson, I can say nothing else you have said changes my original response.

    #36736
    Avatar
    Hamish
    Flatchatter

    I have a similar situation in my two lot scheme where the other owner has installed a surveillance camera on common property (without consultation) which films the common driveway indicating every time I  enter or leave the property and it also films every visitor I have to my residence.   No one can give me a clear and decisive answer to the invasion on my privacy and that of my guests.

    There is a small sign alongside the camera saying you are on view.  You would have to be at least 1 metre away to be able to read it.

    #36737
    Avatar
    HotelRomeo
    Flatchatter
    #36742
    Jimmy-T
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    The above reference is fascinating but the simple solution to Hamish’s problem is that the camera is on common property without permission and the strata committee should be demanding its removal.

    Failure by the strata committee to do so can be pursued at NCAT, but the first step is a letter to either the committee or the strata manager requesting that they order its immediate removal.

    #36747
    Avatar
    HotelRomeo
    Flatchatter

    I agree with Jimmy.  I don’t think you would have a problem getting up on the private nuisance point with the camera alone.  A lot has changed since 1996.

    #38065
    Avatar
    doozy
    Flatchatter

    I think a law compelling tradesmen to obtain a written Work Order for common property work from the OC might stop a lot of these issues. Most tradies won’t ask questions with this sort of work; making them liable to fines or rectification might short circuit the problem. That would be similar to the obligation tree loppers have to sight Council approval prior to cutting down large trees.

     

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login Register